Comments on: The Obama Speech: Some Early Reactions

By: mlindroo

mlindroo — Sun, 24 May 2009 08:00:53 +0000

Sinz54 wrote:
> Obama is taking an awful big risk. If even one
> terrorist attack occurs in America because of his
> policy changes, that will be the end of him and
> his administration.

Sounds a bit overblown to me, although I agree a major, spectacular attack (particularly if the perpetuators ar formed Gitmo detainees!) on U.S. soil would be absolutely disastrous. I guess Obama had better start touting any disrupted terrorist plot that occured while he was in charge of the country...
---
In practice, I suspect it would (as before, with 9/11) be really difficult to pinpoint the exact blame. There is still no real consensus regarding whose Administration's officials (Clinton's or Bush's) deserves most of the blame for not foreeing the WTC attacks. Republican partisans blame the "wilful blindness" of the Clinton Administration while Demo partisans accuse the Bushes of ignoring warnings about Al-Qaeda.

MARCU$

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:29:11 +0000

dragonlady: Obama is taking an awful big risk. If even one terrorist attack occurs in America because of his policy changes, that will be the end of him and his administration.

If, for example, those Uighurs get released into Virginia and attack some Chinese nationals or Chinese-Americans, Obama is toast. And those Uighurs have a track record of being incorrigibly violent while they were held.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:27:12 +0000

kroner: "Everyone's civil liberties"??

When did the ACLU morph into the "WORLD Civil Liberties Union"?? Isn't that the job of Amnesty International?

The vast majority of these detainees are foreigners, captured in foreign countries--often on a battlefield. Since when does the ACLU defend the ENEMY in a time of war?

Did the ACLU defend captured Japanese or Germans in World War II? Even those German civilians who were landed on American soil as saboteurs? How about captured Viet Cong during the Vietnam War?

The ACLU has *never* tried to stick up for the ENEMY in a war. I happen to agree with "dragonlady." That comes close to treasonous behavior.

And I don't admire that one bit.

The ACLU should stick to its original mission of defending the rights of Americans.

Let Amnesty International worry about "everybody" else.

By: kroner

kroner — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:03:55 +0000

One of the core beliefs behind ACLU is that everyone’s civil liberties should be protected, not just people who are popular or nice or who agree with them. You can agree or disagree with that philosophy, but it shouldn’t come as any surprise when they stick to their principles.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:56:25 +0000

sinz, as far as I’m concerned the ACLU and some of the writers at the NYT are flat out a bunch of traitors.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:55:12 +0000

Seems as if Obama is doubling down on Gitmo. While it will keep his base happy, I’m not sure this is the best political strategy for him. He’s going to have quite a fight from his own party, especially if he wants to imprison the terrorists in any of their states.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 21 May 2009 13:49:59 +0000

The good news is that Obama is getting his Lefty supporters to swallow the concept of military commissions.

That's after the Left made them a cause celebre throughout the Bush Administration as an example of "fascism."

The ACLU is still grumbling about military commissions.
But how many votes do they have?

And when did they turn into the "Al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union"?